Senate Economics Legislation Committee [Part 2], , 2:23:02 to 2:32:22
Officials review recent legal proceedings involving NOPSEMA, including the Tipakalippa and Scarborough cases, and discuss changes to consultation guidance following court decisions.
Topics: Law reform, Fossil fuels, Integrity
Speakers: Sue McCarrey, Senator Susan McDonald, Cameron Grebe, Unknown Speaker
Um, what does Oh, we've talked about that. How many environmental assessments have it have occurred where it was deemed appropriate to assess scope emissions under this criteria?
>> Oh, I'd have to take that on notice. Uh, Senator, definitely. We do so many assessments each year and looking back in time, we'd have to take that on notice.
>> Okay. Are there any assessments currently being undertaken that are considering now you know taking on board the discussion that we've just had. So I'm going to say scope 3 emissions but I do mean the the emissions generated
>> and the impacts.
>> Yeah. So I think watch out those that are looking at direct or indirect impacts of greenhouse gas emissions.
>> There are under assessment.
>> There are some under assessment now.
on notice. Can you tell me how many?
>> Uh, certainly.
>> Thank you. What's the average time frame? Oh, I think we've covered this. I was going to ask you, what's the average time frame for offshore project proposals and environmental proposals? Is that the new 8.8
>> No, that includes uh for environment plans, for ops. Uh, I would either assessment would need to sorry, got any under assessment at the moment.
I was going to say speedy. That's not the correct word, but you're up to date.
>> I think Senator, also for offshore project proposals, it's a proponent not yet ready to sanction a project. And so the time frames is mostly driven by >> the length of time proponent spends after initially submitting taking our feedback. Sometimes it literally can be more than 6 to 12 months before we hear from them again. M >> so it's not quite the same comparison just to caution cuz they can run for
what's the average assessment time for proposals that require this broader inclusion of emissions?
>> Uh look Senator I can certainly talk from an environment plan perspective. uh any assessment related to that doesn't actually impact the overall time frame of assessment. Uh in in a sense we have a range of areas that we have to assess. That's one of them in some cases. Uh it doesn't actually increase the time
How does this compare with the assessment time frame? I wanted to ask you how that assesses that compares with time frames for projects that don't need to assess the broader emissions analysis.
>> Yes, it it doesn't change it, Senator. So, what potentially impacts the time frame for an assessment will first of all be the quality of the information that comes into us. Does it actually meet the requirements of the regulations? Does it actually identify all those uh impacts that we've been talking about? But also it depends on the size of the activity. Again I mentioned it might be a fairly small environment plan uh sorry small activity. Therefore there are less complexities and issues dealt with as part of the environment plan and therefore for that reason it will be a shorter turnaround. Uh so it generally relates to the size of the activity and the complexity of the issues involved and then the quality of the information coming in that impacts the time frames of the assessment.
>> Okay. less than your website says less than 10% of plans are accepted by NOPS on first submission as you consider the assessment of greenhouse gases on a case-bycase basis when a business is alerted that their submission will consider the broader scope 3 greenhouse gases
>> uh look senator the majority of the duty holders are aware because they're aware of the legislation that is required so many of them are fully aware ware of the types of activities that we'll be subject to. But we have also very much an open door policy where if they're looking at developing an an environment plan, uh they often will come and have a conversation with us to say what are the particularly complex issues that we might need to deal with in this EP. That may be one of them, but there may be others. Uh so we'll often have that conversation as they're undertaking research uh and work that's required for the uh environment plan. Uh but generally before it's submitted, they're well aware of any requirements on any specific issues, whether it be threatened species management plans, whether it be greenhouse gas emissions, whatever the particular environmental
>> Okay. Um how many legal proceedings has not seen been involved in since 2022?
Uh, Senator, I think that would be three. >> Four. >> Four.
>> Okay. Do you you may need to take this on notice, but otherwise, can you tell break those down by year and outcome?
>> Uh, I I could possibly go close. Certainly at the end of 2022 because I remember it was just before I commenced in the role, the final uh decision in the typical case uh was presented. uh we then had uh >> the outcome was >> a case and that was against our decision but then there was a case for the Scarra project during 2023 which was um Cooper >> uh and then in this year we've had a
case >> the outcome there
>> uh that actually >> overturned our decision in that situation as well. We then had a case that was finalized. So it commenced last year but was finalized this year earlier that was in relation to uh the reindeer >> doctors for environment was it >> uh sorry the doctors for environment sorry I've missed one that's why I've been so doctors for the environment I'm trying to remember senator if that was the end of last year or earlier this year but the doctors for the environment uh was in relation to also the scarra project that uh the court actually upheld nose's decision in that case and then another legal case which was finalized earlier this year in relation to the Santos reindeer environment plan that was in relation to decommissioning and financial assurance that was also our decision was upheld and found in favor of our decision uh and we have a current court case on foot presently which I obviously cannot talk about because it's in the courts
have any of these proceedings related in any way to the assessment of greenhouse
>> The first four I referred to uh one uh talked about the doctors for the environment actually referred to more the performance outcomes and measures that we had accepted which related to greenhouse gas emissions case the court actually upheld the decision that we had taken uh but I cannot talk about any
proceedings challenged not seam's interpretation or application of its statutory obligations concerning
>> Uh not not uh previously senator but I can't talk about a current case on foot.
Following these decisions, what changes, if any, has NOPSA made to its assessment, procedures, guidance, or interpretations of its statutory requirements?
>> Uh, in relation to greenhouse gas emissions, Senator, or uh more broadly?
>> Oh, well, both. I was asking about emissions, but you're right. I should
senator look more broadly we've already covered off that um the original case uh typical kalipa court case did actually change uh the interpretation of how uh consultation was to be undertaken with relevant persons uh and that meant quite a change in the industry first of all in how they actually undertook their consultations how they presented that evidence to us as part of their environment plan and then had quite a major impact on us. So we uh obviously I mentioned that we've brought in expertise to actually assist us with that. Uh we did introduce a number of new policies and guidance material as a follow-up to that particular court case so that uh both industry had a better understanding of how assessments were to be undertaken but also uh relevant persons and others involved. Um the other cases I think the uh the other case that actually where a decision of ours was overturned it was on a minor case of whether or not consultation had been completed. It just allowed uh the company completed that and then resubmitted the plan. So there was no major change to what we were doing internally and as I said then the other two have actually upheld our decision. So there's been no changes there.
>> Well that has brought me to the end of my question block. Thank you very much. >> Thanks, Chair.